Topic: On Ordinals: Where do you stand? - page 44. (Read 9235 times)

any dev team that is not core, that wants to change the rules gets REKT
yes there are brands that just follow the "reference clients" lead, but dare they want equal proposal publishing and choice.. REKT they go

they see alternative bitcoin nodes brands wanting to offer solutions/proposals as opposition/competition. not colleagues/community members

the whole moderation of core disliking independent scrutiny, critique, review.
the whole be a contributor and we will merge your grammar checks and put you as a credited contributor, but dare you implement code that goes against core roadmap you will get banned on their git-hub

is not the fault of the independent reviewers why core dev are oppositional. its that they like their close gate community but open window policy
you can look but you cant touch

more devs have moved over to altcoins such as ethereum. because core have bully moderators as door-men

this is why you see a lack of solutions mentioned on this forums dev discussion, the irc, the mailing list and the github

Depends on who you ask. Charlie Munger still thinks we're all laughing stocks, ordinals or not: https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/15/investing/charlie-munger-daily-journal-warren-buffett/index.html

But actually, let's look at this from another perspective.

Ordinals will spam the blockchain, yes. However, this could actually be the catalyst to accelerate development of alternate scaling protocols (that is, besides LN) that will make transactions faster for everyone, and stands a chance of being used by everybody (as ordinals eventually will be if its current adoption rates continues on a ChatGPT-like curve).

So it could be the push we all needed to get this scalability problem unstuck - and in a way that doesn't surrender control of transactions to 3rd parties. It will likely be a solution made by a small individual program that augments Bitcoin Core, just like the one Casey wrote for ord.

Because I honestly don't see any solution for this forthcoming from bitcoin-dev mailing list.

Yeah, I skimmed through the PDF that was linked there and to be honest I wasn't convinced since there wasn't any proof provided (for understandable reasons of course) and the way they put it sounds like a very subjective matter.
I also specifically don't understand the bold part below. If they have extracted the file from the blockchain, how can it not be verified and why are they referring to an online forum in this case if the file is indeed on the blockchain and not a link to a content on another website.

I can't debate against that, and I don't disagree, BUT the point is, is it right for the community to demand that miners censor those transactions containing data? It would be against permissionlessness and censorship-resistance.

Plus we already know that the miners won't listen because they're incentivized to mine those transactions and include them in blocks. Especially if users are overpaying to have their dick pics and fart sounds in the blockchain.

nutildah..
we all know you have done these crappy memes yourself.
and you are now trying your damned hardest to promote them and make the popular and not want them to stop

we get it your one of caseys gang or casey himself

but no pool has a precedent of being arrested for putting porn on bitcoin because.. there was no illicit porn on bitcoin before. because its just been links and quotes. not actual illicit porn

however it is a crime to distribute illicit porn and mining pools do validate and verifies and makes a choice of what they collate into a block more so than what a user ends up getting
user nodes dont choose what they end up getting in a block.

there is a big difference between a user node and a mining node

EG
an anyonecanspend being relayed unconfirmed by nodes is treated differently than what is same byte for byte lump is treated as by a mining pool owner collating that lump
vs what user nodes treat same said lump once in a block

users didnt ask for said lump in a block
but a pool chose said lump to be in a block

meaning they purposefully chose said lump of data to be added which they have a responsibility to verify and a opportunity to verify what they chose to go into THEIR block template
meaning they had means and opportunity

there is no precedent because ordinal s is a young thing only recently been allowed and so far (luck) there has been no porn to set precedent

but lets not even pretend "no harm no foul" to even suggest someone should try
instead we should prevent before it happens

sorry your side hustle project you love is not admired and does have legal consequence which you want to deny and pretend doesnt exist. but there is legal risk.
so lets not chance it.

and by the way..
its you that want things more so then me.
its you that want things that are making bitcoin seem less appealing.
so its you and doomad types that sound more like CSW

but nice try
yep you want to make bitcoin be less of a currency network and more of a meme network
basically you want people to treat bitcoin like dogecoin. a laughing stock.

Unfortunately you're wrong: the RWTH Aachen Study mentioned in the Coindesk article from 2018 I linked above discovered at least one illegal picture in the blockchain. Of course, the methods used then to store data (it's possible this was even before OP_RETURN was introduced, although for pictures OP_RETURN isn't of any use due to its size limit) were much more sophisticated, using fake addresses and the like in large transactions that looked like "financial" ones, so there was no "explorer" one could view to see the contents.

Source

They're gonna have to host it anonymously on the dark web or risk the consequences, which is at the very least having their website taken down.


Honestly I suppose so, but its because it means you learned something and I'm not just conversing with a brick wall.

https://beincrypto.com/cryptopunk-nft-copies-minted-as-bitcoin-ordinals-bored-apes-next/


I'm not really interested in that believe it or not, but at the end of the day most people are into bitcoin because of their desire to profit off it one way or another, and this new fad is just an extension of that.

i think everyone understands that. but at some point they'll have a blockchain web browser that lets you browse through the images unfiltered.  and not need the little cybernanny what's his name? ordinals.com

if what you say is true then i admit i was wrong. that make you feel better?  maybe it's time to get uploading to cash in on this new fad.

I may be wrong but to my knowledge stuff on bitcoin blockchain (up to ordinals attack) have been an indirect links to the illicit content not the content itself. This is different from the blockchain actually containing the illicit stuff.

This is all nonsense and 100% based on ill-informed conjecture. No mining pool owner has ever been arrested for what they "add to their blocks," despite there being some awful stuff in the blockchain since about 2013. Did not expect this CSW level of idiocy from you, reminding people of fictitious legal consequences if they don't do what you want them to.

What everyone forgets is you still need something to decode the data on the blockchain in order to view the images. The ordinals explorer has already taken to censoring objectionable material. Like everything else viewable on the internet, it is dependent on the moderation of the team hosting the website.

Saying it is up to miners is silly. That has never been the case. You have no precedent on which to base an argument that it will be now.


I said "several thousand" which is more than 1000. Out of the 116,142 inscriptions that have currently been made, 20,000 of them have been made as part of 2 collections that have been put up for sale. The first collection (10k 'Bitcoin Punks') has already sold out. Then there are thousands of over-the-counter sales for ones made by individuals & not part of any collection. You are almost as boring in your steadfast resolve to be wrong as franky.

---

edit:


This is really interesting, thanks for sharing.


Exactly

I made a little visualization about the size of ordinal inscription transactions, to be able to follow the evolution of their impact in the chain:

https://dune.com/d5k/ordinals-by-size

For now I made two graphs, one about the evolution of size categories, the other about total/average size of inscriptions. I may make more.

I think it's too early to extract any trend, we're clearly still in the "novelty" phase where people are trying out, and while the peak in the absolute number of digital artifact inscription transactions was on February 9, on Feb. 12 a new peak of "total size" was reached (~260 MB were inscribed that day, which is almost half of the total block capacity of 550-570 MB/day in optimal conditions). I'll be observing it and then draw my final conclusions. For now I don't think it will disrupt Bitcoin too much, although it is a bit annoying, and it should really move to an emptier chain, be it NMC, LTC, GRS, Datacoin (yeah, that also exists!) or whatever.

About illegal material: I've read there were already illegal pics and links stored in the blockchain, since 2013 or so:

https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2018/03/27/child-porn-on-bitcoin-why-this-doesnt-mean-what-you-might-think/

From the article:

lets' see. 1000/100,000 equals 1%. so i guess i was about right. more or less. he's kind of abusing some feature that was never intended for that. if that's what you call playing within the rules of the system 

maybe but i still think most of them are worthless. i guess as time goes on though we'll see more interesting images. less stupid ones.


yeah i think what we have here is a base from which a decentralized web could be built. forget about ipfs. bitcoin will be taking that over thank you very much! along with increased transaction fees of course. 

firstly the mining pool owner would get arrested for distributing nasty stuff..

secondly. users have the defence that they were not personally motivated to seek and acquire such nasty material it was handed to them without their consent due to a system that just allows things to download onto their device without verifying content
(no motive or intent=accident)

.. because consensus has been softened to not do such security checks
(but yea. if police were to raid every node users house to charge them with storing it.. still get a good lawyer to make a good argument dont depend on justice to sort itself out and realise what was intentional vs accidental/unconsentual)

but yea mining pools need to be very very careful what they add to their blocks

but we should harden consensus to not allow such things through and reject blocks that try in the future becasue a malicious pool does do a stupid thing

I have a question that is more about law enforcement than it is about technology. I apologise in advance if this question has already been asked and I overlooked it. As far as I understand, an image inserted into the blockchain using Ordinals will remain there in indefinitely. So, my question is the following.

what happens if someone else insert a child pornography photo into the blockchain? Is it going to make every network node illegal?

The general legislation guidelines state that it is a crime to “Acquire, possess, or store a photograph, video, or other form of recording containing an explicit or pornographic sex scene involving a child or adolescent by any means.”

PS- The law in US (I'm quite sure it's the same in the EU and any other civilised country.)

Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996.

Section 2256 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (5),
“data stored on computer disk or by electronic means which is capable
of conversion into a visual image”.

gotta laugh

doomad has no concept of consensus

you dont just turn up with waffle cones and think only franky thinks thats odd.. the whole group thinks its odd and throws the waffles in the trash

.. well that was consensus 2009-2016 when waffles would only become new consensus when majority decides waffles look good to want them on the table..  and the majority get to decide that from now on everyone thinks waffles are acceptable and they all have the choice of waffles not just bob
but it requires the consensus decision.. and not just bob eating waffles while everyone else  has no way to get waffles or check the waffles are not stale or no way to reject waffles or accept waffles themselves

if you think bob can just do as he pleases and everyone else ignores bob. unable to check the quality of waffles.  then you have no clue

doomad forgot the main thing..
in his own story he said the table decided on icecream
thats why they were eating icecream and not [insert random thing doomad wants to bring to the table]

bob broke the rules by bringing waffles(under 2009-2016 consensus).. but since 2017 with consensus being softened. bob NOW can because there is no true consensus anymore. its been softened to let [insert anything] without being treated as odd

doomad falsely thinks there never was consensus. in other words there was never a icecream agreement

consensus needs to re-hardened so that bob cant just bring along his dozen bloated monkeys next time to steal peoples seats at the table

---

extending doomads story starting from 2017
doomad is part of a few monkey brains.. that love bananas not coffee flavoured icecream

doomad wants to bring bananas to have icecream sundae splits, you know. sliding in a change without it feeling like its a change/new rule but just a soft addition

then bring his 12 bloated monkeys that dont like icecream but just want the banana's . then he wants to say icecream is not allowed at the table because its coffee flavoured

something doomad hates coffee flavour being on the table. he wants coffee pushed off the edge and put on his favoured LiNoleum floor (LN flaw) where he can make money from the coffee icecream, by making people lick the drips off the floor

Just because I disagree with your moronic and demonstrably wrong definition of "tRuE cOnSeNsUs" (stupid franky1 catchphrase), doesn't means I deny the existence of consensus.  I also recognise the existence of opt-in consensus, which is the part franky1 appears to struggle with.  Since franky1 is big on fairytales and nonsense, consider the following made up story (based on true events):

One day, Alice, Bob, Charlie, Dave, Ellie and Frank all agree to meet once roughly every 10 days to eat ice cream.  It becomes their regular routine.  One could describe this as a consensus agreement.  After a while, along with bringing ice cream, Bob decides to bring waffle cones and starts eating his ice cream out of a cone instead of a bowl like everyone else does.  Frank says this wasn't part of the agreement and says that 95% of the group have to agree before Bob can eat his ice cream from a cone.  Bob ignores Frank and continues to eat from a cone.  On the next gathering, Alice then turns up with sprinkles and puts those on her ice cream.  Frank starts having a hissy-fit and screeching about "tRuE cOnSeNsUs", but no one listens to him.  And then on the next gathering Dave turns up with chocolate sauce and before long everyone apart from Frank is putting all this extra stuff on their ice cream.  Frank goes off the deep end and compares everyone to rapists because he hasn't given his approval for any of this extra stuff.  The others reply that they're still meeting the agreed terms and haven't broken the consensus agreement because they're gathering roughly every 10 days to eat ice cream.  They also suggest Frank seeks some psychological help, because there's clearly something wrong with him.  There's nothing Frank can do about it and the others continue to enjoy their assorted toppings / cones /etc.  And so, the group continued to meet roughly every 10 days for ice cream.  And they all lived happily ever after, except Frank, who remained miserable for the rest of his life because he couldn't order people about like he wanted to.  The end.

 

Censorship-resistant, peer-to-peer electronic cash. It's as if you stopped your sentence half-way through.
It has never been about censorship-resistant cloud storage. Big distinction.

I wholeheartedly agree with this and also believe that (1) there is nothing comparable to Bitcoin and it is extremely important for humanity. (2) abusing it for uncensored cloud storage will bite (1) in the ass & put the whole project at risk (due to legal and moral issues of storing anything that anyone pays for).

If someone is very passionate about freedom cloud storage, why can't they build their own network for that? They should commit to storing anything from anyone, as long as they pay for it, but not force us to do it on our payment network.

usually in discussing when there is a reply. its replying to the last thing said (hispo was posting previous to mine)

however to reply to an earlier conversation. thats where you would need to break the current conversation to respond to earlier conversation by quoting earlier conversation

EG if i wanted to respond to the OP topic post i would quote the op topic post because there are too many other conversations afterwards.  

I think that, unlike Ethereum, artists and professionals - and by that I mean those with experience - won't move to Bitcoin because they have already received a negative response from the way the NFT bubble ended. On the other hand, BTC seems to me to be a race for profit by some speculators.

read the content. dont take a snippet


no where in the full context was it a proposal of a "red button".. but nice try making it seem so

,,
it was not a proposal. it was a response to hisbro envisioning a "guard" and me showing how due to a lack of a red button at a individual guard principle he mentioned....

yea guys nice try. but it helps to learn that although you might snippet and take things out of context. the forum shows and stores full content..

so stick with the full content of a post not try to take a snippet to try to imply something else